phr
Bluelighter
Jury nullification is a way to fix drug war fiasco
Paul Carpenter
The Morning Call
3.16.08
Jury nullification is a way to fix drug war fiasco
If you are called to serve on a jury and the judge, or bailiff, or whoever, catches you with a copy of this column, quickly stuff it in your mouth, chew it and swallow it. Stomach acid will dissolve the paper and they'll never be able to prove a thing. Take similar action if caught with page 50 of the March 17 Time magazine.
Then, if you are asked what you know about jury nullification, lie and say you never heard of it. If you stick to your story, they can't touch you.
I realize I'm telling you to do something illegal (the part about lying, anyhow) but only because I know many judges do worse things. Jury nullification is perfectly legal, and any judge who tells you otherwise is the one telling whoppers.
I'll get back to that, but first there is a Lehigh Valley man who thinks ''The Wire,'' a fictional cop show on HBO, was ''very nitty-gritty, about problems in a city.'' The show recently ended after five seasons, dealing with the way the news media cover the war on drugs and other issues.
I never did see it, but Mike Ring of Allentown noticed a Time magazine article that was written by six of the show's writers, and he felt the article echoed some of the views I have expressed about the so-called war on drugs.
He said it ''offers a suggestion to put an end to our failed drug policy. ... It's not a complete solution, but it certainly would be a workable start.''
The article was written by David Simon, creator of ''The Wire'' and five colleagues. He was formerly at the Baltimore Sun, The Morning Call's sister paper, and was known for his in-depth reporting on the drug war and police operations.
The drug war, observed the Time article, ''grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring our resources, turning city neighborhoods into free-fire-zones,'' all with one main result -- America now has ''the world's highest rate of imprisonment.''
(That resonated with Ring, who told me he once was told by a top local politician that ''the biggest item of the budget is the Lehigh County Prison.'')
Another result of the drug war, the article said, is that law enforcement people must spend less time on crimes in which innocents are harmed or killed -- while politicians refuse to tell the truth about drugs and instead ''compete to prove themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most profound and enduring policy failure.''
Sound like an echo? It does if you read much of my stuff, except that I do not use such gentle terms to describe the wholly corrupt war on drugs.
The Time article observed that Thomas Paine called for civil disobedience to thwart the ''flawed national policy of his day.'' So, along those lines, its six writers made a vow.
''If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented,'' they said. ''No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.''
That is jury nullification, and it is a noble concept. The article noted it goes back to the press freedom case of John Peter Zenger in colonial times.
I have argued in favor of jury nullification for years, not just in drug cases but in any case where a juror feels there is abuse of government power.
No matter what lies a judge spouts, you have an absolute right to vote not guilty if you do not like the way the government pursued its case, or even if you simply dislike the law used to prosecute somebody.
Some states accommodate jury nullification instructions by judges, but in states like Pennsylvania, prosecutors will move to oust jurors who indicate they might exercise that right. So you need to keep quiet about it until it's time to deliberate in a jury room.
Then, it takes only one out of 12 to confound a reprehensible policy, as Simon and his TV co-writers have proposed.
Perhaps, after a few hundred hung juries in a row, authorities will get off their rumps and start going after thugs who harm the innocent, instead of pathetic junkies who harm only themselves.
Link!
Paul Carpenter
The Morning Call
3.16.08
Jury nullification is a way to fix drug war fiasco
If you are called to serve on a jury and the judge, or bailiff, or whoever, catches you with a copy of this column, quickly stuff it in your mouth, chew it and swallow it. Stomach acid will dissolve the paper and they'll never be able to prove a thing. Take similar action if caught with page 50 of the March 17 Time magazine.
Then, if you are asked what you know about jury nullification, lie and say you never heard of it. If you stick to your story, they can't touch you.
I realize I'm telling you to do something illegal (the part about lying, anyhow) but only because I know many judges do worse things. Jury nullification is perfectly legal, and any judge who tells you otherwise is the one telling whoppers.
I'll get back to that, but first there is a Lehigh Valley man who thinks ''The Wire,'' a fictional cop show on HBO, was ''very nitty-gritty, about problems in a city.'' The show recently ended after five seasons, dealing with the way the news media cover the war on drugs and other issues.
I never did see it, but Mike Ring of Allentown noticed a Time magazine article that was written by six of the show's writers, and he felt the article echoed some of the views I have expressed about the so-called war on drugs.
He said it ''offers a suggestion to put an end to our failed drug policy. ... It's not a complete solution, but it certainly would be a workable start.''
The article was written by David Simon, creator of ''The Wire'' and five colleagues. He was formerly at the Baltimore Sun, The Morning Call's sister paper, and was known for his in-depth reporting on the drug war and police operations.
The drug war, observed the Time article, ''grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring our resources, turning city neighborhoods into free-fire-zones,'' all with one main result -- America now has ''the world's highest rate of imprisonment.''
(That resonated with Ring, who told me he once was told by a top local politician that ''the biggest item of the budget is the Lehigh County Prison.'')
Another result of the drug war, the article said, is that law enforcement people must spend less time on crimes in which innocents are harmed or killed -- while politicians refuse to tell the truth about drugs and instead ''compete to prove themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most profound and enduring policy failure.''
Sound like an echo? It does if you read much of my stuff, except that I do not use such gentle terms to describe the wholly corrupt war on drugs.
The Time article observed that Thomas Paine called for civil disobedience to thwart the ''flawed national policy of his day.'' So, along those lines, its six writers made a vow.
''If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented,'' they said. ''No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.''
That is jury nullification, and it is a noble concept. The article noted it goes back to the press freedom case of John Peter Zenger in colonial times.
I have argued in favor of jury nullification for years, not just in drug cases but in any case where a juror feels there is abuse of government power.
No matter what lies a judge spouts, you have an absolute right to vote not guilty if you do not like the way the government pursued its case, or even if you simply dislike the law used to prosecute somebody.
Some states accommodate jury nullification instructions by judges, but in states like Pennsylvania, prosecutors will move to oust jurors who indicate they might exercise that right. So you need to keep quiet about it until it's time to deliberate in a jury room.
Then, it takes only one out of 12 to confound a reprehensible policy, as Simon and his TV co-writers have proposed.
Perhaps, after a few hundred hung juries in a row, authorities will get off their rumps and start going after thugs who harm the innocent, instead of pathetic junkies who harm only themselves.
Link!
